← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
8/1/25: MAGA questioning failed deportation scheme, Jubilee’s debate meme-ification
01:08:02
-- On the Show: -- David hosts a Substack Live with Sarah Matthews, deputy press secretary during the first Trump administration -- Donald Trump’s immigration lies are unraveling as data proves immigrants lower crime and boost the economy --...
Loading summary
Transcript83 lines
- [00:08]
David Pakman
The air right now is thick with fear about immigrants. It is manufactured fear for sure. You know, you turn on cable news or scroll through your feed or listen to Trump give a press conference or speak in public and you're going to hear it. It's the same recycled narrative that immigrants are dangerous, they're a drain on the economy, they're a threat to real America. But if you step back from it for a moment and you get rid of the rhetoric and you just look at the facts, you find that reality shock is not what Stephen Miller is telling you. You find that immigrants are not a threat to the American dream. You find that immigrants really embody the American dream. They are building the American dream, sustaining it to the extent that it still exists and fighting for it really much harder than many of us ever have to. So we start with the big lie. And the big lie is immigrants are more prone to crime, immigrants are more prone to violence. We start there because that's the basis for which a lot of this anti immigrant rhetoric is based on. And that's one of the most dangerous and persistent lies that is out there. It's wrong, it's been disproven over and over again. We've got decades of research and it all tells us the same thing. Immigrants, whether they are documented or undocumented, commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States. We've got a major study in criminology that looked at this. The Cato Institute, not a left wing group, it's a libertarian group, found immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native born Americans. So at the top level, when you hear the dangerous illegals thing, ask people who say it, why does the data say the opposite? Give me data that proves dangerous illegals is a thing. This is a lie that's not really about safety. It's we need a scapegoat, let's create an enemy so politicians don't have to fix the real problems. And those same politicians love to say that not only are immigrants dangerous and violent, but they're also an economic burden. It's bad for the country and they take and they don't give. Immigrants are freeloading, especially undocumented immigrants. That is lie number two. The truth is that, number one, immigrants are keeping entire sectors of our economy up and running. Agriculture, construction, health care, hospitality. Immigrants are there doing the work that a lot of Americans won't do, can't do, especially in labor, short industries. I'm not pigeonholing immigrants documented and undocumented, but there are certain industries that disproportionately are relying on immigrant labor. The other interesting thing is we talk about the American dream in entrepreneurship. Immigrants start businesses at a significantly higher rate than native born Americans. So we are talking not only about a group of people that is not a drain on the economy. These are job creators, these are builders of community. And then we get to the economic aspect of it. Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes. They pay sales tax when they buy groceries. They are paying property taxes through rent. Many pay income taxes using taxpayer ID numbers. And so this idea that immigrants aren't paying taxes if they're undocumented, not true at all. So that takes us to what the people that say they are America first are saying. They are saying we need policies that would actually be devastating for the American economy. They claim we need to grow as an economy, we need innovation and we need a strong workforce. But immigrants are the engines of all of that. And at the same time, they want these mass deportations. The other interesting thing is you've got like the birth rate obsessed people, the people like Elon Musk obsessed with the birth rate coming down. If birth rates keep going down, which they probably will, and the population continues to age, where is the growth they so desperately want going to come from? It can only come from immigration, new families buying homes, enrolling their kids in school, paying taxes, building lives, building businesses, buying stuff in their communities. You look at science and technology. Foreign born workers make up nearly 60% of the most educated cohort of STEM professionals. Immigrants are filing patents, they're inventing things. They, I should say we. I'm one of these immigrants leading AI research. So why would we be telling them to get out? It's not America first, it's America last if you do that. And then that sort of gets us to the Trump era policy, which is the mass deportations, rounding up millions of people and tossing them out of the only country they've ever known. It's morally sick, it's logistically impossible, it's economically completely catastrophic. And to deport millions would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And why? To destroy industries, to separate families, to tank the gdp. It just doesn't make any sense and it's just as bad. Or to put a different way, in addition to all of the economic costs, the human costs are just absolutely disgusting. So why are we doing this stuff? Why are we fomenting the fear instead of the facts and pushing a policy of cruelty over compassion? Well, there's a couple different realities. Number one, it's always easier to demonize than to Understand? And to lift up, it's always easier to scapegoat rather than to say with nuance and with distribution, like you would expect in any group. Look at all of these great advantages to immigrants. And that has become unfortunately, part of Donald Trump's scapegoating sort of status quo. So, of course, on the facts, the next time someone tells you immigrants are ruining America, tell them to give you the information. Committing crimes? No. Dragging down the economy? Absolutely not. Helping innovation 100%. If they're worried about economic growth, you need immigrants. If they're worried about a declining birth rate, you need to bring in people from outside the country. That's the only way to counteract that or get people to live much, much longer. But, of course, unless they're actually working during those extended years, the economic benefit is going to be a real question mark. So we have it. If we really do have a country built on immigration, how is it the right path to shut the door after you've walked through it? It doesn't make any sense. And I think increasingly Americans are sort of realizing that never mind the fact that the deporting 3,000 people a day thing is just a delusional fantasy. Did Donald Trump get Stephen Colbert fired? This is pretty interesting. FCC chair Brandon Carr was on Fox News, and host Bill Hemmer just asks him, was Trump involved in that firing? And we certainly don't get a no. Here, take a listen to this.
- [07:28]
Sarah Matthews
Thanks.
- [07:28]
Brandon Carr
Good to be with you.
- [07:29]
David Pakman
Let's just go ahead and get it out of the way. Did President Trump have anything to do.
- [07:33]
Bill Hemmer
With the cancellation of of Stephen Colbert Show?
- [07:37]
Brandon Carr
Well, here's what's important to keep in mind is a broader dynamic. When President Trump ran for election, he ran right at these legacy broadcast media outfits and the New York and Hollywood elites that are behind it. And he smashed the facade that these are gatekeepers that can control what Americans think and what Americans can say. And once you do that, you've exposed the business model of a lot of these outfits as being nothing more than a partisan circus. And so I think there's a lot of consequences that are flowing from President Trump deciding, I'm not going to play by the rules of politicians in the past and let these legacy outfits dictate the narratives in the terms of the debate. And he's succeeding. Just look at what's happening. NPR has been defunded. PBS has been defunded. Colbert is getting cancer. You've got anchors in news, media personalities losing their jobs again. All, all of this is downstream of President Trump's decision to stand up. And he stood up for the American people because the American people do not trust these.
- [08:35]
David Pakman
So he is not saying Trump had nothing to do with the firing. He is saying everything that's happening, including the firing of Colbert, is downstream from this new approach and attitude that Donald Trump has put together. He is saying that Colbert deserved to be fired. He is saying that there's going to be a lot more of a shakeup. But he is not saying, bill, of course Donald Trump had nothing to do with the firing of Stephen Colbert. You know, when I hear people give an answer like that, they sound like they're hiding something to me. Let me know what you think you heard there. And then I think there's one other thing that's important to address. There is no question that Colbert's show was, was losing money. There's no doubt about that. Among the late night shows, Colbert's was the highest rated. So there's kind of two stories here. Is the late night model kind of dead or dying? It might be. It absolutely might be. But among that cohort, Colbert's was the highest rated one. So unless there were some kind of artificial pressure, political pressure or other kind of pressure, you wouldn't just cancel the whole thing. You might go to Stephen Colbert and go, listen, we got to cut staff from 200 to 100 and we've got to cut your salary from 16 million to 8 million. And then let's give it a go and try some new things and see if we can get ratings up, make more money, bring the costs down and see if it's viable. That's like what you would normally do after decades of having an institution like this. You wouldn't just go, you're fired and the show is canceled, never to be spoken of again. And so even the circumstances suggest there was pressure from somewhere. And Brendan Carr is certainly not denying that it came from Donald Trump. Let me know what you think. We'll talk more about potentially what might be the slow demise of the late night talk show on my substack. Substack. David Pakman, dotcom, let's be honest, when it is hot outside, the way it's been bad, bad underwear makes it really much worse. Our sponsor, Sheath Underwear, has completely rethought how men's underwear should function in the heat. Sheath's boxer briefs are designed with a dual pouch system keeping everything in place, separate, ventilated. This means less sweat, less sticking, less of that awkward adjusting. And if you're not using the pouches, the fabric alone is a game changer. Soft, stretchy, moisture wicking now available in cooling materials like bamboo and mesh. I wear these at the gym during long workdays, especially when I know it's going to be hot outside. It just keeps you dry and comfortable and they've really raised my expectations about how good good underwear can be. Wearing sheath is like having built in climate control for the lower half of your body. Everything stays cool, dry and where it should be. If you've never thought much about your underwear, this is the one brand that might make you start. Go to sheath underwear.com/pacman use the code PACMAN for 20% off the link is in the description. A pending Supreme Court case could strip our fourth Amendment rights and allow immigration agents to come into our homes for any reason. No probable cause needed. All while Republicans try to twist things so that you think this is all great for America. This should be the biggest story in the US right now, but it's almost impossible to keep up with the millions of moves that Trump is making every single day. That's why Ground News exists. Ground News is an app and website that exposes the blind spots and spin. But before it takes control of our opinions, Ground News is the smarter, more reliable way to stay informed. When MAGA is banking on us getting distracted, I'm partnering up with Ground News to give you 40% off the same vantage plan that I use, so you'll pay only five bucks a month for all of their premium features. Just go to Ground News slash Pacman or use the code Pacman in the app when you sign up, the link is in the description or scan the QR code. The David Pakman show, of course, is directly funded by you. This is not an abstract thing. And you know, I've been having a lot of conversations with fellow creators behind the scenes, and there's both this sort of incredibly humbling reality where we look around and we say our jobs, our platforms, our audiences exist because a portion of our audiences say, I like what you're doing so much, I don't have to do it. It's not mandatory. Like if I have cable, Fox News gets four bucks a month. We don't have that. We exist because enough people go, I like what you're doing enough that I'm going to pay for it, even though I don't have to. And so I want to say a huge thank you. A humbling thank you to everybody who has become a website member over recent weeks, a substack paid subscriber over recent weeks or both and invite you to join those ranks. You can go to join pacman.com and become a web site member and get all of the perks that come with that. You can go to substack.david pakman.com Become a paid member there and get all the perks that take place there. Or you can do both. And of course, if you would like to be a member, but the cost is the barrier, you can go to David pakman.com/free membership to request a free website membership. And you can become a free subscriber on Substack. And every week, Substack will randomly gift free subscribers memberships on there as well. All right, many of you have written to me and have said, david, you've got to talk about the latest Jubilee Surrounded episode where Mehdi Hassan crushed 20 fascists. And I know that this didn't happen yesterday, right. It's been, I guess, 10 or 14 days since it took place. And the reason I waited is I really wanted to figure out what to say about it because I think that there's a much bigger story here about these sort of the memeification of debate. And so let's see if we can kind of parse out where, where I am on this. You know, there was a point where politics really was about ideas with real substantive debates. You don't have to go back to like the Lincoln Douglas debates, but the whole point was people trying to understand each other, or at least pretending to. And there is a way in which this entire space has now become a game, Internet bloodsports. And it's really built for clicks, not for clarity and progress. And nobody plays this game better than Jubilee and specifically Jubilees Surrounded. So if you haven't seen it, the formula is like this. You take one person with some strong opinions or with a history of engaging in political debate, you put them in a circle of 20 people who disagree with them. You hit record. And it's designed to be chaotic and explosive and. And the point really isn't to find common ground. Jubilee actually has a different show, which is about that, I think. I think it's called Middle Ground, in fact. But the point of surrounded really is to make something explode. And so you can say it's about a conversation, but it's not. If you watch the show, you see that it's about outrage. It's about generating a kind of conflict and drama that gets clipped and it goes viral and it flips, floods your feed. Which gets us to this recent episode with Mehdi Hassan. Mehdi went up against 20 far right fascists, really. I mean, I think that's what we just have to call him. He did really well. That's not what's at issue here. What really blew up online was the fallout for some of the participants. There was one guy who openly called himself a fascist, and he was eventually fired by his employer. And, you know, it became about free speech. But, of course, when viral content spills into real life, your speech has consequences. And this guy ended up getting fired. So it's not just that these shows stir up controversy that gets generated, that gets turned into clips. It'll hit the real world. That has real world impact. Now, I want to be honest with everybody here, especially because the people at Jubilee might see this video. I've been invited previously to go on surrounded. So far, it hasn't happened. The first time, it was like, can you come out to L. A. The day after tomorrow? And I just couldn't do that with a baby at the time. Then there was one we had scheduled, which they canceled on me. So I may end up doing it. I may not. I don't think doing the show makes you a bad person as. As the person in the middle, but I think we should just be really honest about what it is. You know, before the last election, when I was in Vegas, I had my own viral moment, which I didn't create. It sort of just created itself. And it was when I did this show with Sean, Mike Kelly, and I'm going to play the clip for you, I said something really simple. I said to him, you know, when the US Puts tariffs on imports, American companies pay the tariff. He thought China was cutting a check for the tariffs. I explained to him that's not how it works. He was stunned. This clip got, I think it was like 40 or 50 million views. I would walk down the street and people who don't usually even watch politics go, I saw your thing with that guy about tariffs, and this went giga viral. Not because it was new or because I did, like, a nuanced explanation of tariffs. It was the reaction. It was. He seemed to have no idea how tariffs work. I explained it to him. It was impact and reaction more than nuance and depth. So just as a reminder, this is the clip I'm talking about.
- [18:41]
Sean Mike Kelly
So when it comes to Trump, do you dislike his policies or him as a person or both?
- [18:45]
David Pakman
I don't.
- [18:45]
Bill Hemmer
I don't dislike Trump as a person in the sense that I've never met the guy. So I think he has a lot of personality traits that make him completely Unsuited to being president. And also I think his policy prescriptions, to the extent that they exist and he understands them, which is a different part of it. A lot of the stuff Trump talks about, he still doesn't know how tariffs work. We're eight years into this thing, nine years in, he still thinks China pays the tariffs when they're paid by.
- [19:09]
Sean Mike Kelly
Yeah, I've seen him talk about tariffs.
- [19:10]
Bill Hemmer
Very confused. Very confused guy.
- [19:13]
Sean Mike Kelly
Wait, so China's not paying tariffs right now?
- [19:16]
Bill Hemmer
The tariffs are paid by the American companies that import the Chinese goods. That's the way it's such a fundamental. And I see you looking a little confused. This is the way tariffs work. What Trump did is place tariffs on Chinese imports. By the time the imports get here, China's been paid for this stuff. Maybe they get net 120 terms.
- [19:39]
David Pakman
Right.
- [19:39]
Bill Hemmer
But in a sense, China has already transacted. The American company who brings the goods in pays the tariffs.
- [19:46]
Sean Mike Kelly
Really?
- [19:46]
Bill Hemmer
This? You're kidding right now?
- [19:48]
Sean Mike Kelly
No. I thought he said he was raising the tariffs by 50 to 100% for Chinese imports.
- [19:52]
Bill Hemmer
For it. You got to clip this. I'm begging you, you got to clip this.
- [19:56]
Sean Mike Kelly
And I mean, no, generally, none of.
- [19:57]
Bill Hemmer
This stuff is getting cut out, right?
- [19:58]
Sean Mike Kelly
No, no.
- [19:59]
Bill Hemmer
Oh, my God.
- [19:59]
Sean Mike Kelly
We post everything.
- [20:00]
Bill Hemmer
Please. The tariffs are paid by the company that does the importance importing. So if you want to build a building in the US and you import Chinese steel, you pay China for the steel, you pay the US Government the tariff. This is why it's inflationary. Economists have looked at Trump's tariff proposal and said it would make stuff more expensive for Americans by adding the cost of the tariffs to the total cost of production. So that's the way tariffs work. A lot of people don't seem to know how tariffs work, which is sad because this is how people end up getting sucked into Trump's vortex. He says something, that sounds good. I'm going to punish China with tariffs.
- [20:40]
Sean Mike Kelly
Yeah.
- [20:41]
Bill Hemmer
In this case, you. That sounds good. You know, Chinese tariffs, they're paid by the American companies.
- [20:47]
David Pakman
Wow.
- [20:48]
Bill Hemmer
That's why it's so damaging.
- [20:49]
Sean Mike Kelly
That's crazy.
- [20:50]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [20:50]
Sean Mike Kelly
Yeah.
- [20:51]
Bill Hemmer
Send me this part of the.
- [20:51]
Sean Mike Kelly
No, I will. I genuinely had no idea. I thought China was paying those.
- [20:54]
David Pakman
Yep. So this, this sort of thing is what makes surrounded so addictive. People get a rush. Right. You see someone like, you say what you believe, or you see someone get attacked for saying something you don't believe, or you see someone getting roasted for saying something dumb. The whole point is you feel something. Sean and I didn't debate the merits of tariffs or when they're appropriate or how to do targeted tariffs. It's just like there's this dopamine thing. And that's why that got like 40 million views. And then what Jubilee does is they gamify it because the people in the circle can wave red flags to vote other people out. And it's sort of like Survivor for opinions. And the more extreme you are, in a way, the more attention you get. That's what these algorithms want. That's what Surrounded delivers. And the scary part is, and this is the part that gives me pause, is that the more that we normalize this stuff, the more the dangerous ideas start to look normal, like just part of the political discourse. Someone calls themselves a fascist on camera and suddenly that's part of the conversation. Suddenly it's content. And once it's content, it's money. And it doesn't matter if it's smart or stupid or dangerous. If it gets views and creates an emotionally salient response, then it wins. And so that's what's broken now. We're using Mattie's episode of Surrounded to talk about this. This is such a bigger issue. This has infected everything. It's in every platform, every so called debate, every show. We're not really talking to each other in a lot of these situations. We're kind of like performing for clicks and likes and outrage. And sometimes good stuff comes out of it, right? I mean, with the Sean Mike Kelly thing, he created this moment, right? I didn't really create it. I was the guest there. But something good came out of it, which is that tens of millions of people, many of whom don't really follow politics or economics, got the crux of an idea. American companies pay the tariffs, not China. And so it can expose a real issue, a point of ignorance, but it can also divide. It can also sometimes legitimize certain radical ideas. So I think the point is the fact that these shows exist isn't necessarily the problem. We just have to accept that it's not completely harmless. When we turn serious conversations into games and reward the most outrageous voices or emotionally escalated confrontations, we don't really solve anything. In fact, I think, and this is something all of us creators contend with and we talk about it when I meet up with other creators, we discuss this in trying to get the ideas we believe are the right ones out there to the largest number of people to create a good impact, we sometimes end up feeding a monster that is not a good monster to feed. So I don't think people like Mehdi or I don't think anybody's doing anything wrong by doing these shows. We just need to be honest about the system and what the system rewards. And it rewards noise over nuance and shock and emotional salience over truth. Although if the truth overlaps, that's great. But it doesn't always. And this has consequences. And this is the entertainment ification of politics. And it can turn extremists into celebrities too. And that is maybe the most dangerous aspect of the whole thing. So let me know what you think. As I said, I was almost unsurrounded and then they canceled and then another one I couldn't do. Right now, nothing's on the books. Should I do it if they ask me to? And maybe they're going to see this video and say, david, we, you know, we don't like what you said, but if they invite me, should I do it or should I not Leave a comment Send an email to info@david pakman.com I do want to hear from you. Support our show by checking out our sponsor Brain FM Focus Music. They're giving you free access to their app for a whole month at brain.fm/pacman Once you try Brain FM you'll quickly understand understand why this has become my go to music app when I just want to focus on work. In addition to music for focusing on work, they have modes specially designed for sleep, relaxation, meditation, all created by musicians working with neuroscientists. A peer reviewed study showed that Brain FM's music boosts attention, especially for people with adhd tendencies. Brain FM's Focus Music is the only music made to support ADHD. Brains Brain FM is the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. Because of their unique audio technology that changes the patterns in your brain. Brain FM has been an amazing tool when I just want to focus on work. In the past I've tried Spotify or YouTube. I end up distracted or can't find exactly what would be most useful for me me. So at a certain point I figured silence must be the solution until I discovered this. Brain FM is personalized depending on your brain type. So if you want to improve your focus or relax, give Brain FM a try for 30 days. Totally free. Go to Brain FM Pacman. The link is in the description. We are going to be speaking to Donald Trump's former Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews. This conversation was yesterday on my Substack Live. You can get these live as they happen@substack.david pakman.com Very interesting conversation. Let's get right into it.
- [26:40]
Elon Musk
Welcome, everybody. Today we're going to be speaking with Sarah Matthews, who served as Donald Trump's deputy press secretary. If I have the dates right, Sarah, it's you started in 20. And of course, after, shortly after the January 6, 2021 fiasco, you left. So your tenure was about a year, is that right?
- [27:02]
Sarah Matthews
Yeah. So I had worked on his 2020 reelection campaign for about a year prior to that as a spokesperson, and then they moved me over to the White House to be deputy press secretary for about the last seven or eight months of the administration. Until you highlighted. Until I resigned on January 6th.
- [27:20]
Elon Musk
And you worked under Kayleigh McEnany that entire time?
- [27:24]
Sarah Matthews
Yes. So Kayleigh McEnany was the press secretary while I was at the White House, and I was one of the deputies underneath her.
- [27:32]
Elon Musk
So I want to eventually, like the arc I'm thinking of is we'll eventually get to taking your knowledge of what it was like during the time you were there, applying it to what's happening right now, and getting your thoughts as to the way that things tend to operate behind the scenes. But maybe before we get to that, when you were working in the Trump White House during this period of time, what was the sort of, you know, sometimes there's a culture of fear. Oh, my goodness, the boss is furious. People are scared. People are scrambling to try to avoid getting caught in fire from whoever is going to point at them. Sometimes there's a culture of protecting the principle. So, for example, when In December of 2024, I went to the White House and was part of a group of creators that met with then Joe Biden, the vibe to me was limit access.
- [28:27]
David Pakman
Sort of restrict and keep this very.
- [28:30]
Elon Musk
Neat and tidy and not allow it to get beyond a sort of controlled vibe, so to speak. So the point of the question is, what was the environment like when you were there in terms of something just happened? What do we need to do? How do we need to react?
- [28:44]
Sarah Matthews
Yeah, I think the Trump West Wing was a really interesting place because it was a lot of big personalities while I was there. And I think that that is still the same in the second administration. And there was a lot of inner fighting going on and knifing, like people just constantly going behind each other's back, going to the boss with things and trying to get him to do things the way that they wanted. And then obviously there was. There's also a level of managing the principal, and that kind of comes with working for any politician. But to, for Trump, to the NTH degree, like trying to manage him and keep him happy and stay in his good graces was sometimes a delicate tightrope. And I think especially in that period after the election when he was upset and he was pushing these claims of voter fraud, which obviously we know there's zero evidence of and he's never been able to prove. But I think a lot of people were kind of avoiding him during that time because they were afraid of his outbursts and how he would react. Or I remember specifically when I was working for Kayleigh McEnany, he wanted her to do briefings on the subject from the podium. And so she would actively avoid him in the West Wing in those months following the election because she knew that that was against the Hatch act and something that she didn't really want to step in. And so I think it is interesting just seeing now with the second administration and how it doesn't seem like much has changed, but it seems like there's fewer people who are willing to push back on him. And so he's just kind of getting away with everything. And it doesn't seem like there's those kinds of voices in there where I do think that there were some of those kinds of voices, at least when I was working for him.
- [30:32]
Elon Musk
It sounds like it's assumed in what you're saying that he really believed the claims about the election being stolen. I mean, this is something we've gone back and forth about a lot. Does he know that he lost or does he saying this stuff? At least at the time you were there, he seemed to be what we might call like a true believer.
- [30:50]
Sarah Matthews
He was definitely told by people that he lost. So it's not like he can claim ignorance. I think that he was being told by people that he had lost, and then he stopped listening to those people and started listening to the people who were telling him what he wanted to hear. And so then he was believing the conspiracy theories and pushing those out. And so I think when you tell your something enough so many times, you actually start to believe it. And so I think that he knew in the immediate aftermath of the election that he had lost, but I think over time, he's convinced himself that it was rigged and stolen and that he was the actual winner.
- [31:29]
Elon Musk
And the people around him who were telling him that is your sense that they were true believers or they saw it as a way to get closer to Trump?
- [31:40]
Sarah Matthews
I think a little bit of both. I think that, you know, you look at someone like Rudy Giuliani, and obviously someone I once held in high Regard. And, you know, it's just how the mighty have fallen and what a shame it is to look at where he's at now. But I think that, you know, he saw it as an opportunity to get close to Trump and kind of be his right hand. But then I think maybe there's a little bit of cuckoo ness happening up there, too. So I think that, you know, or you look at, like, Sidney Powell, I think that. That someone who' little cuckoo as well. So those are folks who I think, saw an opportunity, though, and seized it. So some combination of the two.
- [32:20]
Elon Musk
How is it that a president is sort of kept, or let me put it a different way, we read about different administrations that sometimes the president isn't getting the full story of what's going on out in the world. So, like, as an analogy, in Jonathan Allen's book and in Jake Tapper's books, a lot is reported about how in the aftermath of the June 27 debate that went so terribly for Joe Biden, Biden wasn't getting the real story about the polling. And so the story is the people around him were saying it's still within the margin of error. There hasn't been a big change. What I want to ask you about is this concept of, from the outset, it just sort of seems like Trump's known to watch Fox News all the time. Biden would read all these newspapers, and.
- [33:08]
David Pakman
How could it be that they're not.
- [33:09]
Elon Musk
Getting the full story? Like, is it.
- [33:12]
Sarah Matthews
What.
- [33:12]
Elon Musk
What is the. What are the ways in which a president might be kept isolated from all of the information?
- [33:19]
Sarah Matthews
Yeah. So what you bring up about Biden is a really good point and how his staff kind of shielded him from the truth. And I really think that they did a disservice to him. But I'll admit that there is a little bit of that that happens in Trump world, too. I know when I was there, we would print out news articles for him that we knew would make him happy so he could, like, read the headlines. If we were worried he might be in a bad mood or there was something that was upsetting him. We print out these positive news articles or positive tweets praising him to kind of, you know, butter him up and get him in a good mood. And I think that, you know, that is still happening to this day. I'm sure you've seen the reporting about the woman who works for him, who they've dubbed the human printer, and she literally, like, was carrying around a printer with him during the 2024 pain cycle and on the golf course and everything and prints out these things for him. And it's a way of buttering him up, but it was also a way of kind of filtering what you wanted to put in front of him, because you have to be really careful with what you present Trump with and what you put in front of him. Because he has a tendency when he hears something, it kind of sticks in his brain, and then he'll just repeat it. And so whether he's reading something that you put in front of him or he hears something on Fox News, you'll notice he'll have a tendency to do that. So you kind of have to be careful with. With what information you're putting in front of him and presenting him with. And so that was a way that we were, at least from the press office, we tried to filter things through to him, to kind of control what.
- [34:50]
Elon Musk
He had eyes on, it seems from the public. So hard to believe that arguably the most powerful person in the world might not realize what the world is saying about them. You know, like, in other words, if Trump gets this sanitized version with the printed positive tweets and headlines, you would imagine that he's going to. When he's looking at Twitter at the time or watching Fox or whatever, he would see that there is another narrative where you could apply the same question to Biden. When he's getting one set of polls from the people allowed to brief him on polling, you would think if he opens up even the New York Times or turns on msnbc, he would see the news about the polling actually isn't looking so good.
- [35:30]
David Pakman
But it.
- [35:30]
Elon Musk
Does it just not work that way.
- [35:32]
Sarah Matthews
I think that maybe it's just like a thing with their old age that they weren't as in the know and invested in, you know, reading all these different news sources. Like, obviously Trump has his favorites, and every now and then, you know, you'll see like a. A truth social post or something where clearly something got through that maybe was on like a, you know, a CNN or an MSNBC that he didn't like and he caught some clip of it. I feel like usually it's because, like, Fox News is airing that clip and doing some discussion about it, if that makes sense. So. But for the most part, I think it is. His media diet is pretty filtered. And I think the same goes for Biden. And so, yeah, it is kind of a crazy concept to think of, you know, these two powerful men who were, you know, holding the highest office in our land. But I think maybe it was just a product of their age and how old they were that they, their staffs are able to kind of get away with that.
- [36:29]
David Pakman
That's interesting.
- [36:30]
Elon Musk
Yeah. Because I just imagine, you know, if my team tells me, David, people are loving what you said about Epstein and if I go and look at my emails, YouTube comments and my Twitter and I go, no, they don't. It's very clear that it seems like it would be so easy. But that's interesting to hear from you. One more thing for the context and then I want to move into some of what's going on now. Sometimes you can observe Trump's social media behavior and it'll be like overnight, there's not more than a couple hour gap between posts which leads people in the media to go, is he up all night? Are these pre written and someone sending them out overnight? What are the dynamics of these sort of like all night social media sprees? Was that something the behind the scenes of which you were privy to when you were in the role as deputy press secretary? Like, was he known to be up all night putting out messages?
- [37:18]
Sarah Matthews
I, it wasn't something that I was necessarily privy to or that my role would have touched. But I do think that for the most part these are messages that are coming from him, especially those ones that are in the late hours or you know, where you get like a 2 or 3am post from him. Those are more than certainly coming from him and not scheduled posts. And I think it's pretty easy to differentiate between ones that are written by him and ones that were pre written by staff. You know, he has his own flair that he adds to his posts, as you can probably imagine. And so in those scenarios he's just.
- [37:57]
Elon Musk
Sitting up all night posting.
- [37:59]
Sarah Matthews
Yeah, that's, that would be my best guess is. And that's what my assumption was when working for him and looking at his post now.
- [38:08]
Elon Musk
So let's talk about the last, you know, it's the last 24 hours and it's the last seven days and it's the last couple of weeks. This, this Epstein stuff, one of the things that I'm finding interesting is we have these conflicting denials and explanations where they can't all be true. You know, it's sort of like there was no fire and I'm not the person who started it type of stuff. So we were told there's no Epstein list. And also Trump's not on the list. And also he's on the list but because Obama, Hillary and Comey put him on the list. And it's like, well, okay, these, all of these things can't be true. What does your experience tell you about how you see this evolution of what the statement is? Is it that there's just an initial denial with the idea that maybe the story goes away, and as it doesn't go away, you have to come up with new things? Are people talking to him about, you might not want to say this, you might want to say that, or is it just he's flying solo and putting out whatever comes to mind? How do you imagine it? The, the, the reaction to the Epstein stuff is developing.
- [39:12]
Sarah Matthews
I think it's largely Trump dictating the strategy and him just throwing whatever he can at the wall and seeing what will stick. I think he thought most controversies that he's faced in the past, he is like Teflon. It seems like nothing has an ability to stick with him and that the new cycle kind of quickly moves on and we shift into the next topic. And so this is kind of uncharted territory where it seems like he isn't used to a story sticking around for this long. And so I can tell that he's getting frustrated with it. And that's where you see him throwing out these different excuses, where you have, the White House strategy was clearly for them to say, no, look, he thought Epstein was a creep, and that's why he kicked him out of his club. And Trump obviously had a different strategy. He decided to go with the, oh, well, no, it's the Obama and Comey. They're after me. It's like Russia, Russia, Russia witch hunt. And he thought that, I think he thought that that would play his base and get them riled up. But obviously this issue goes so much deeper for his base. It's something that they are really invested in. And so I, I, this, They're not being fooled by his distractions or his lies that he's trying to come up with and spin. And so. And then now we've seen him shift to, oh, well, it was over a business dispute. He was poaching people from the club. And, and so it's interesting because, like you mentioned, not all of these things can make sense. They don't necessarily seem to go together. And so it makes me curious what the truth is. And I think we're inching a little bit closer toward the truth. I do think that it more than likely it had to do with him getting upset with Epstein over maybe repeatedly poaching people from Mar A Lago. And I think that there's a reason behind that, because I believe that Trump knew what Epstein was up to. And specifically, when Trump was asked about it on a recent gaggle on Air Force One, he was asked about how these were young women that Epstein was poaching. And he acknowledged that one of those women was one of Epstein's accusers who worked at Mar A Lago, and she was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 16. And. And so it leads one to believe, if you're kind of connecting the dots here, that Trump knew what Epstein was poaching them for and using them for work for, because it's not like Epstein had his own golf club or resort that he needed these people to come work at. So what was he using them for work for? And I think that, you know, one can kind of connect the dots and see that Trump probably had insight into what Epstein was doing and what he was up to. And so I just think that that's pretty damning, though, when you look at it, because I think that Trump may present it as like, this was some heroic act, like, oh, I kicked him out of my club. But at the end of the day, I think a normal, decent human being who had that type of insider knowledge would have called the cops. He would have said, hey, this guy is partaking in child human trafficking, and tip them off.
- [42:37]
Elon Musk
So that's interesting that that's your view, because that's kind of where I'm landing. And I know that there are people who are saying, oh, what Trump's covering up is that he was a client of Epstein's, and, you know, there were these girls that Trump was involved in the sexual assault of. And, I mean, listen, if at some point there's evidence of that, certainly that would be huge. But as the story has evolved and he has acknowledged, yeah, one of the women was underage, and it was Virginia Giuffre. And this, to me, it seems very clear that Trump knew at least something about what was going on, but did nothing about it. And even the timing of when Epstein was supposed.
- [43:12]
David Pakman
When.
- [43:12]
Elon Musk
When the breakup between them supposedly happened, even some of the timing of that is suspect based on what Donald Trump is saying, because it seems that he remained a member at Mar A Lago long after news of his activities had sort of become known. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But what's your sense of. Are there people that are trying. You're guessing here, obviously, but based on your experience, do you think there are people that are trying to control what Trump is saying? Or is it, we're not going to be able to control. Let's just try to clean it up after.
- [43:42]
Sarah Matthews
Well, one thing that I did want to add on one of your previous comments too was something that I think we're in agreement on is that I, I don't want to guess what's in the, you know, the files, I obviously never seen them. And, and so this is all just, you know, me kind of coming up with my, my theories on everything of like what Trump's role in all of this could be. But I think there is something to be said that if there was some sort of silver bullet that could take out Trump, I would have imagined that Merrick Garland would have released these files when he had the chance. And so I don't know what's in there, but I think that there's something that Trump is panicked over and worried about. And to me, my best guess then is that he did have knowledge of Epstein's activities and just like turned a blind eye cuz he was like, I'm having fun partying with this guy or you know, or these are my friends and I'm just gonna look the other way. So I don't know what's in there. But that' just something that I wanted to add on top of what you said. But to your other question, I think that it's not even just in the case of Epstein. It's oftentimes with managing Trump, you're just reacting to what he says. You can give your advice and sometimes he'll listen and sometimes he'll take it. And I think that, you know, those around him, they're probably, I imagine those people around him are probably trying to help him throughout this situation. But for the most part, I think that Trump thinks that he has like the pulse on his base and what they'll react to and what they care about. And so I think he usually just goes with his instinct of doing what he thinks is best to say or do at any given time. And I think that this scenario is the first time where we've really seen that he clearly doesn't have his pulse on it and that he's the situation incorrectly because he's trying to distract them with, you know, oh well, there's, it's the Obama and the Comey conspiracy theory and or then he's trying to gaslight them and say why are we still talking about Epstein? And to me that is just infuriating the people that voted for him. And I think that that includes maga, but then also some of these newer voters that came into the coalition during the course of the 2024 campaign, some of those kind of like podcast bro types who were listening to people like Theo Vaughn or Andrew Schultz or Joe Rogan talk about these things, and they are saying, hey, something's up here, and they're not buying what he's selling. And so I think, though, that the White House side of things and the staff, they can try their best to push him in a direction, but at the end of the day, Trump's always going to do what he wants to do.
- [46:42]
Elon Musk
Sarah, last thing I want to talk about the period of time between January 6, 2021, and when you left, did you get the sense, or to put it a different way, what was the sort of makeup of the views in the White House in terms of the people you spoke to as to what happened on January 6th? And what I mean by that is there were a lot of public defenses of Trump. Trump said, be peaceful, and ultimately, he didn't do anything wrong, this sort of thing. But in terms of what was shared candidly between you and others, was there a large contingent that genuinely felt that Trump did nothing wrong and had no blame for what happened on January 6th, or was there more of a consensus that this is bad, we've got to clean it up? I'm maybe some people are willing to help clean it up, and some, like you, are not, but that there was sort of a unanimous feeling that, no, no, Trump does have culpability here. What was the environment like?
- [47:37]
Sarah Matthews
Yeah, it, you know, it's so funny because I was in the West Wing that day, and I would say 99.9% of the people who were there with me that day were experiencing the same feelings that I was feeling. They were saddened, they were heartbroken. They were disgusted and shocked and disappointed, particularly with Trump and his handling of it and feeling like he didn't meet the moment. And this was something that I talked about with staffers who, some of whom still work for him to this day. And so it's just really interesting to see the whitewashing that has happened and that extends, you know, to the Republican politicians who, you know, welcomed him with open arms back into the fold when we had an opportunity. I say we as like, I'm a member of the Republican Party still. I don't know where I am these days anymore. But the Republican Party had an opportunity to move past him and chart a new direction, and instead they chose not to. And so because we saw all the statements that, you know, these politicians were putting out in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, I wasn't alone in my feelings. I did choose to resign that day. And obviously there were several other resignations, but not as many, I think, as one would have thought after witnessing the first president in U.S. history disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and incite an insurrection on our nation's capital. So, yeah, I think there were many more people, though, who agreed with me. And then there's a lot of people who I still talk to this day who will tell me privately behind the scenes, hey, I really respect you for what you did and support you and everything that you're doing and saying, like, keep up the good work. But these are people, some of our members of Congress, some are their staff, and they're not willing to publicly say these things, but they'll say it to me behind my back or I mean, in private and which is very interesting to me because I think that that sentiment still holds within some parts of the party. But then I do think that others have just chosen to, you know, whitewash those events and have kind of convinced themselves of that, you know, there was no wrongdoing and everything, because maybe it's a way of feeling less guilty about themselves. I don't know.
- [50:08]
David Pakman
You mentioned, you know, you're not even.
- [50:10]
Elon Musk
Sure where you are politically right now. Is there an elected official right now that ideologically you feel like is sort of representative of your views? And you know, I thinking of a friend of mine who ever since we were in college, he was like a Romney guy, a Romney type Republican, and he was never a Trump supporter. He did support Democrats for president in the last two elections, at least the last two, because he's not a Trump guy, but he's still like a Romney kind of center right Republican type person. Is there someone right now that you would say this is really the embodiment of my politics?
- [50:44]
Sarah Matthews
Yeah, that's such a good question because I grew up being a Romney, McCain type of Republican. Those were the figures within the party that I admired. And unfortunately, a lot of the other Republicans in the party that I have admired have left office in recent years. I think of someone like Senator Rob Portman from Ohio. I'm from Ohio originally and he was someone that I really look up to. And unfortunately, just the way that the, the party has shifted, those types of people are leaving, choosing on their own accord to leave public office. Or I think of like a Will Hurd from Texas, Congressman from there. He's someone that I adore and just have the utmost respect for and consider a good friend. And it's like Those are the types of Republicans that I want more of in our politics. But unfortunately, our current political system, the way that the primaries are, it doesn't reward those types of Republicans more kind of normie types, and it rewards, you know, those who are on the fringes. And so I. I mean, there are some folks who, like, you know, depending on who the Democrat 2028 candidate was that I would back for president, like, I think probably the. The name that comes to mind is like a Governor, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia. He's kind of more similar, I think, to a lot of the ideals that I believe in and support. And so he would be someone. But, like, also, like, I would have a really hard time with the fact of the idea of supporting someone who's not willing to go out there and say that the 2020 election wasn't stolen. Like, it's. It's sad that that's such like a. Like, it's the litmus test for me, though. But it is, and it's something so basic that any politician should be able to say. But I do think that when the Republican primary happens for 2028, I do think there are going to be a lot of candidates who aren't willing to go that far and say something as simple as that, even though we know it to be the truth. And so, you know, it will. It will just depend on, I think, what the field looks like on both sides, kind of for where my support will go. But there still are Republicans within the party who I do like and admire. But it's hard to see how a lot of them have contorted themselves to not get on Trump's bad side. And so there's a couple out there. But unfortunately, I do think that a lot of the Republicans that are more aligned with my values have decided to leave office in recent years, which is disappointing because I think we need more people like them to be running, not less. But I wouldn't want to work in Washington either, if I were them. So I get it. I understand.
- [53:45]
Elon Musk
No, that I sympathize with.
- [53:47]
David Pakman
Yeah.
- [53:47]
Elon Musk
We've been speaking with Sarah Matthews, who was briefly Donald Trump's deputy press secretary. Sarah, really great to talk to you. Appreciate it very much. And we'll talk again.
- [53:58]
Sarah Matthews
Thank you so much for having me.
- [54:00]
David Pakman
Go Google your name right now, and you'll probably be shocked by how many sketchy websites have your address, phone number, even details about your family. Family. Our sponsor, Incogni, is the solution. It is a service that will force data brokers and people search sites to delete your personal information so scammers, spammers and snoops can't get their hand on it. It's also now part of their unlimited plan that you can do custom removals. You're no longer limited to just the 250 plus sites in their automated system. You can submit at any link where your personal info is exposed and Incogni's privacy experts will get it taken down. Even if the site's not in their database, whether it is whitepages.com, trellis.law, dNB or anybody else quietly publishing your information, Incogni will wipe the footprint clean. You paste the link and they do the rest. If you're tired of being tracked, profiled, targeted, this is how you push back. For instance, these sites are where scammers and spammers can get your information to then target you. Using Incogni can cut way down on the spam calls and the messages that you get. Try it risk free for 30 days and get 60% off an annual plan when you go to incogni.com/pacman. The link is in the description. All right, let's hear from some of you in this week's Friday Feedback segment. You can always email info at David Pakman if you have some sort of feedback, but we will also look at tik tok comments, YouTube comments, Spotify comments, substack replies. Anything might end up here. And today we start with David colangeli, who on TikTok wrote, I'm Italian, I admit I don't speak English well, but am I wrong or does Trump speak like a person who doesn't know English well and talks about meaningless and very simple things when he keeps referring to them but them who? Does anyone ask him? Yeah, there's a lot to this and I think that one of the there's a few different things here. Number one, Trump uses very simple language. That is completely true. And linguistic analyzes of Trump's speech have been done. His vocabulary has simplified significantly over the last five, 10, 15, 20, certainly 30 years. And you've seen it happen in sort of linear fashion, maybe even accelerated, accelerating fashion, but it's been a constant. In addition to this, we do question Trump's ability to think abstractly. And this is one of the things this is like a big issue just in, you know, Homo sapiens, right? To what degree does a limited ability to express abstract thoughts suggest that you are also unable of thinking them, never mind explaining them? And it there is pretty good scholarship that has been studied specifically as it relates to Presidents. Right. They looked during the 24 campaign at Biden, Trump and, and Harris. It does seem that for people, you know, the general population, if you start seeing a simplification of language and a, a reduced ability to discuss abstract and complicated concepts, it's usually more than just communication. It's often also something that's happening in terms of being able to think those thoughts. Now, finally, when Trump refers to them, yet usually he's talking about Democrats, when he talks about them and they and what they did to him, you know, sometimes it's he's referring to what the FBI while Biden was president did or whatever. You know, so it might be intelligence agencies, it might be Democrats. He does rely on on they quite a bit. That's absolutely true. All right. On Instagram, Karen Kakabi said, good job, my friend. Your show has been getting better and better. It's like good wine. The more you age, the better you become, the wiser and smarter and more on point. A huge congratulations to you, your show and everything that you're doing. I don't think you get enough. Thanks. Well, Karen, I do have to congratulate you. Karen has managed to apply the correct your in this case, it's why O U apostrophe R E. And that's a beautiful thing to see. A lot of the hate mail gets that wrong. But Karen, I appreciate it. And you know, one of the things that I've wondered sometimes is like, would I ever get to the point where I just think, hey, the show is. We've reached the pinnacle of the show. No, we. That's it. We don't need to change anything ever again. And the show's as good as it has ever been. And the answer is, I have never felt that. I always have felt. We always want to be innovating. Let's continue tweaking and adjusting the show. Sometimes it's when audiences expect sort of different formatting on certain platforms or how can we better connect or what things can we add so many, many more things in the pipeline. Karen, thank you very much. Ok, Academic Value wrote on the subreddit it. I hope that Democrats don't overplay their hand with the Epstein thing. This is a rare occasion where Trump is getting some pushback from his base. The Dems should pursue this for the purpose of transparency and justice for the victims. I think if they make it political and start accusing Trump, it may backfire and Trump could use the witch hunt talking points again. His base may fall right back in line. If they do that, they should basically Follow the lead of what his disgruntled supporters are demanding and not ad lib. Well, let me address it generally and then more specifically, generally, it is absolutely the case that Democrats. It's not always about overplaying, but it is definitely about mishandling or not getting the right benefit or the most benefit out of a situation specifically. This does seem to be a story that is crossing party lines, meaning Republicans, Democrats and Independents seem to want transparency and increasingly seem to believe that the Trump administration is involved in at least some level of COVID up with regard to the Epstein files. So if Democrats can position themselves as, hey, come join us, we are the ones for the transparency you were promised by Trump. I think that that's good. In terms of overplaying. Well, you know, overplaying is a generic term. It's sort of like, does this have too much salt? Well, it's like, why? Well, what amount of salt does it need? What amount of salt is appropriate? I think we will have to wait and see. Okay. On YouTube, Noble Lauria says, so the man who got shot in the ear and it healed within a couple days has a problem with bruising from handshakes. Gotcha. I like this. Not because, not, not because I'm trying to, to get conspiratorial here, but these inconsistencies that often come up are really interesting. And so the Trump administration, on the one hand wants us to believe that Trump is so powerful and is so, you know, strong and all of this stuff that his ear very quickly showed zero evidence of ever having been grazed by a bully.
- [61:38]
Sarah Matthews
It.
- [61:38]
David Pakman
But on the other hand, he has bruises that have lasted for months, which he is now covering with makeup because he's shaking hands with people so often, total healing from a bullet. And then handshakes are causing semi permanent bruising on his hands. Yeah, there's obviously a lot more to the story in terms of, well, what about the blood thinners and all these different things. But just like as a top level, it does seem incoherent to say Trump's regularly getting hurt by handshakes, but he healed like that from a gunshot wound. That is interesting. Okay. From Instagram, the disaffected liberal commented David the misinformer. Now, you'll notice that the disaffected liberal didn't make any substantive criticisms or tell me what I got wrong about anything. And then another user said, it looks like you were the one who was misinformed. David is reporting the news. And then the disaffected liberal came back and said, propaganda unclear Whether the disaffected liberal thinks the response to his comment is propaganda or that I'm reporting propaganda rather than news. To all of these folks, as I've always said before, I have an open door. Come and confront me. Tell me what facts I got wrong. Tell me where my analysis is off. I'm glad to be confronted. I do. Tik Tok lives. They are open to people who just disagree with me. They could be Trump supporters or not. Whatever. I encourage you. Come and tell me exactly what I'm getting wrong. Greg says even if Obama did something illegal in relation to the Russia investigation, he was president at the time and he ordered the investigation as a presidential act, so he has presidential immunity. Well, Greg is, of course, completely correct, and in fact, it's more ironic than that. Trump's view on presidential immunity is extraordinarily expansive. And even though the Supreme Court didn't rule presidents have immunity for anything they could even hypothetically do as president, they did say the Supreme Court said there is broad immunity for any kind of official act. There is no doubt whatsoever that when Barack Obama said, we need to look into whether Russia's meddling, whether Russia has the ability to hack our election system, when Obama did that, of course he did it as president. Of course it was an official act. So there's really three layers to the whole faux Obama conspiracy theory that Tulsi has trotted out in order to try to help Trump. Layer one is they've presented no evidence for what they're actually claiming took place. Number two, if they had evidence and they were able to present it, the statute of limitations has expired on the crimes they are claiming Obama committed. And number three, even if the statute of limitations had not expired by Trump's own definition of presidential immunity, Obama would have presidential immunity. Now, I don't even think we need to focus on steps two and three, because the most important one is they've not presented any evidence of any of this stuff. But Greg is completely and totally correct. Sean Coffee says David has bills. Subscribe or Trump will destroy America. So what's the implication here? The implication is that I am being hyperbolic in the threat I claim Trump poses to America in order to get people to subscribe to my show. You know, one of the really interesting things about this is that all the time since Trump has become a candidate in 2016 through now, we're talking nine years in all of this time, I am roundly and regularly criticized because I am not being alarmist enough.
- [65:35]
Elon Musk
Enough.
- [65:35]
David Pakman
And because I am being too alarmist at the same time, just in the last month, this has happened. So my message to Sean would be the following. This is a show that has grown every year for nearly 20 years. We have had multiple different presidents at this point in time, Republicans and Democrats. We've had different types of Republicans as presidents throughout all of it. I just tell it to you the way I see it, it I don't exaggerate my level of concern and I don't suppress my level of concern. If you disagree with me about the level of concern about something Trump is doing, tell me what it is and we can talk about it substantively. But David saying Trump's doing dangerous stuff for subscribers? Give me a break. It's tired, it's old, and it's very lame. User fj8 said on YouTube Alarmist creator of drama and fear mongering Thought you were leaving the country. Just another lie. So once again, I don't know if this is an unreasonable request. Criticize me for things I've said, not for things I haven't said. And as I laid out in that segment that went Giga viral about six weeks ago, I am at this point I've put in place a plan to leave the country should it get to the point that I believe I need to for myself and my family's safety. For my and my family's safety. I said in the video I am not leaving the country right now and it's that simple. So criticize me for things I've said. If I ever tell you I am now leaving the country and I don't, then that would be a different story story. And then it would be much more reasonable for you to criticize me and to say that I have told lies. And maybe we will get to that at some point in time. All right, send in your thoughts info@david pakman.com we have a bunch of great substack lives coming up. I hope that you're subscribed to my substack substack.david pakman.com We've got a great bonus show for you today. Make your make sure you're signed up@join pacman.com and as always, as always, you can email, comment, reply anywhere. It might end up being featured on Friday Feedback.